05:3205:32, 27 August 2021diffhist+14
Imelda Marcos
Article matches all criteria for being an attack page. Recommended to be rewritten as stub until a more neutral version of the article is created.Tags: RevertedMobile editMobile web edit
10:0110:01, 22 August 2021diffhist−442
Diehard Duterte Supporters
this is an opinion piece not a fact. the lede is problematic because it focuses on the origin of the term instead of describing the actual group of people being referred to by the term. it should be immediately apparent what they areTags: Mobile editMobile web edit
09:4509:45, 22 August 2021diffhist−8
Diehard Duterte Supporters
it wasn't just alleged. the group actually existst according to https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/04/06/you-can-die-any-time/death-squad-killings-mindanao (2009)Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
10:4610:46, 14 February 2021diffhist−46
RJ Nieto
Object404 keeps adding the word "controversial" to describe this article subject but insists on removing the same adjective on article subjects whose controversy are significant enough to have its own article. The bias is very obvious.Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
10:3810:38, 14 February 2021diffhist+91 m
Maria Ressa
Again, the detail about the subject is significant to have its own article so it should be on the intro. The detail was expounded on the below paragraphs anyway so why delete it?Tag: Manual revert
06:2106:21, 14 February 2021diffhist+23
Rappler
→Special Features: Dedicating an entire section to a specific feature is uncyclopeadic and looks more like an advert. Articles about other sites containing similar functions don't have sections like this. It wasn't newsworthy enough to even deserve its own section. Putting this under a more general section title instead.Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
06:1206:12, 14 February 2021diffhist+91
Maria Ressa
It's weird that the fact that Maria Ressa is a CONVICTED CYBERLIBELIST is being pushed down from the intro when that news is prominent enough to have its own article and deserves to be on top.Tags: RevertedMobile editMobile web edit
12 February 2021
16:5216:52, 12 February 2021diffhist−171
Rappler
This detail is unimportant and uncyclopaedic. Plus its only reference was its own website and was not even newsworthy. Therefore, should be deleted for brevity.Tags: RevertedMobile editMobile web edit
16:4816:48, 12 February 2021diffhist−445
Rappler
The provided citation reference link did not confirm the statement. There was not even a mention of rappler whatsoever.Tags: references removedMobile editMobile web edit
16:3016:30, 12 February 2021diffhist−2,435
Rappler
This looks more like a product advert than an actual encyclopiable fact that deserves a section. Should probably just get deleted.Tags: section blankingMobile editMobile web edit
14:4214:42, 5 February 2021diffhist+6
Maria Ressa
Quite some biases on this article trying to downplay someone's conviction for a crime while other articles directly label a person according to the crime they've been convicted for.Tags: RevertedMobile editMobile web edit
14:3814:38, 5 February 2021diffhist−613
Maria Ressa
→Awards: A nomination is not an award. Plus the Nobel Prize website states a nominee cannot be revealed 50 years later. https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/ Makes the "news" about the nomination dubious.Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit